BEADLEGATE: ESPN’s Beadle, CNN’s Nichols In Credential Flap

UPDATE: CNN’s Rachel Nichols offered a statement regarding the drama surrounding the credentials. Here it is:

“After asking tough questions of Floyd Mayweather on my program, I was not offered press credentials to cover tonight’s fight. In an email dated April 23, I was told I would only be credentialed for the run-up events through the week, but in bold, italic letters the email stated “you do not have any access Saturday to any services or events.” A CNN producer revisited the issue with the Mayweather camp on April 29, confirming to Mayweather’s publicist that I would be in Las Vegas, and the publicist replied that I would still be denied a fight night credential. I was told the same thing when I arrived at the credential office in person on May 1, by two separate officials, in front of several other people. It doesn’t surprise me that now, after facing significant backlash, the Mayweather camp has reversed its position. But despite this, and other outside parties generously offering me their seats, I will not attend the fight. I will also not let fear of retaliation prevent me from asking the tough questions the public deserves answers to in the future.”

———————————————————————————————————————–

 

Drama, drama, you bet yer mama..

You thought we’d head to the home stretch and just coast to the finish line with a grin on face, in a euphoric daze?

Nossirr…

This is boxing, theatre of the unexpected. You best expect drama to rear up at any time, it’s only prudent…

ESPN’s Michelle Beadle Tweeted this, this morning:

I, along with @Rachel__Nichols, have been banned from the MGM Grand Arena for the fight tonight by the Mayweather camp. #TheFightGame

And we saw this Tweet from CNN reporter Rachel Nichols:

No fight for me or @MichelleDBeadle. Mayweather’s team told my producer the camp was blocking my credential.

Then the worm turned again…

Mayweather publicist Kelly Swanson took to Twitter and said both have creds to watch the card.

Kelly Swanson ?@kellyswanson1
No one including ME banned @Rachel__Nichols from covering the fight. She is already credentialed. #Facts

She followed with: Kelly Swanson ?@kellyswanson1
And @MichelleDBeadle isn’t even on the press list. She’s credentialed through @HBOboxing. Yes credentialed. #Fact#2

My take: I was surprised when it appeared they were barred. Nichols went hard at Mayweather in an interview before his last fight and apparently some lingering animus had resulted in a move by, I presumed, Team Mayweather, to offer payback. Beadle is unafraid, is prone to taking to Twitter to offer her stance on issues which could be termed delicate, such as when discussing Mayweathers’ criminal history. I thought, and she thought, some of that candid talk was noted, and was reacted to. I was but of course, as a journalist, as the first VP of the Boxing Writers Association of America, not pleased by the situation when it seemed they were barred.

Dissenting voices are a fact of life when one is a public figure, and of course, this being a “free country” the powers that be are free to not offer the courtesy of a credential to watch the fight. And some would argue that neither of those people are “boxing media” anyway..But in the end, that move could have been seen as a petty one, and would I think have spoken more to the decision makers or maker who chose to ban the reporters, than anyone else.

I reached out to a spokesman for Team Mayweather to get clarification. I also reached out to reps for CNN, and ESPN, and HBO, as Beadle does work for Jim Lampley’s “The Fight Game.” Lampley told me he knew what the rest of the Twitersphere knew and would decipher the matter in coming days.

UPDATE: An ESPN spokesperson gave me this statement: “Michelle’s credential to the fight was not an ESPN credential. It was for her work with HBO.”

WATCH RELATED VIDEOS ON BOXINGCHANNEL.TV

COMMENTS

-Kid Blast :

The fact that certain "journalists" have been credentialed tells m all I need to know about this smarmy process.


-Bernie Campbell :

Who in the fch is she anyway? Why does she feel entitled! Get Women out of men's sports! If I was Floyd's camp, Id boot her in the a-- too! Let her cover a fashion show or flower show even...get out of my face! Hello Karen Bryant!!!!!!


-brownsugar :

Whether it was on purpose or an error she got what she deserved.... After inviting Mayweather on CnN under the pretense of doing a prefight interview, Nichols attacked Floyd for his Ray Rice interview and domestic violence record...she also presumed him guilty of a pending case. And told the audience not to by PPV. It was a dirty underhanded scurrilous trick. Regardless of what Floyd did or didn't do, Nichol's should have clarified what the real purpose of the interview was. To add insult to injury... After making her self righteous accusations she cut the mike and video feed on Floyd and proceeded to degrade Mayweather and attempt to kill viewership for the Maidana fight. I lost all respect for CNN as a "News" broadcasting agency and their internal policies. Its one thing to chase a guy with a microphone down a street corner. But its different altogether for a respected news agency to invite someone under false pretenses and not let them tell their side of the story. All of that sabataging and it still didn't stop the biggest fight in history.


-Radam G :

Money May ought quit with the dirty syet. He knows what time it is. A woman, you should not beat. And on your arse will not be the intense heat. Holla!


-The Good Doctor :

I am going to sound like an insensitive tool here but it's truth. I really don't blame Floyd, or his team, or whomever for this. They both did ambush work on Floyd, especially Rachel Nichols. In addition, it does amaze me how you stand on your pedestal or righteousness yet attend the fight. If you are full of that much vitriol, at least have the guts to say I am not attending nor benefiting him like Olbermann did (A dumb take as well). Yet they were trying to get in. In addition, my big question is, if you cared so much about domestic violence, if this was so dear to each of you, where were you the instant Floyd got out of jail? Not a peep from either. Floyd had five fights before this one, with a combined purse of over 120mil, yet there was no outrage then. Now, when it's a huge event, and the climate of our country flocks to anything closely related to domestic violence, you are all over him? Sounds more like glory seeking, convenience journalism to me. I think Floyd has some issues and he is far from one of my favorite people but if the man has right to work as deemed by a court of law and a state commission after serving his sentence, then let him be. The truth is, all this domestic violence stuff is about a videotape and PR, not someone's true caring about the victims or their plight.


-stormcentre :

Who in the fch is she anyway? Why does she feel entitled! Get Women out of men's sports! If I was Floyd's camp, Id boot her in the a-- too! Let her cover a fashion show or flower show even...get out of my face! Hello Karen Bryant!!!!!!
Yep, tend to agree. What did they expect Floyd to do? Invite her in with open arms? Beadle doesn't deserve to go to any Floyd fight if Floyd doesn't want her there; domestic violence considerations or not. Because a Floyd fight is, within the context of entertainment, (to some extent) a Floyd promotion and production. It's not an opportunity to score points for the patron saints of real and professional domestic violence victims.


-stormcentre :

I am going to sound like an insensitive tool here but it's truth. I really don't blame Floyd, or his team, or whomever for this. They both did ambush work on Floyd, especially Rachel Nichols. In addition, it does amaze me how you stand on your pedestal or righteousness yet attend the fight. If you are full of that much vitriol, at least have the guts to say I am not attending nor benefiting him like Olbermann did (A dumb take as well). Yet they were trying to get in. In addition, my big question is, if you cared so much about domestic violence, if this was so dear to each of you, where were you the instant Floyd got out of jail? Not a peep from either. Floyd had five fights before this one, with a combined purse of over 120mil, yet there was no outrage then. Now, when it's a huge event, and the climate of our country flocks to anything closely related to domestic violence, you are all over him? Sounds more like glory seeking, convenience journalism to me. I think Floyd has some issues and he is far from one of my favorite people but if the man has right to work as deemed by a court of law and a state commission after serving his sentence, then let him be.
The truth is, all this domestic violence stuff is about a videotape and PR, not someone's true caring about the victims or their plight.
Yep - spot on. One of my best mates is a criminal and family law barrister, and from over the 20 years I have known him and both gone to his legal trials and also received the inside story there and also from him when we catch up, on domestic abuse (the Australian term for the USA term domestic battery); it has been very interesting. The majority of the abuse cases over here are pretty much atmospheric allegations that no-one can prove or disprove. Basically people looking for legal, financial and other advantage during their complicated relationship breakdowns. Make no mistake, domestic abuse is a thriving legal/cottage industry over here in Oz. Women's help organisations/agencies and lawyers assist women to "present" their concerns and cases, so that any disagreement and/or unharmonious relationship circumstance can be defined as abuse. And if not, then these agencies assist them so they "learn" how to create circumstances and arguments that will then, in turn, satisfy abusive conditions. One trial I went to involved a women - whom spent 12 months going to women's help organisations (that had never once bothered to check if she was genuine) in an effort to set her husband up so she could claim domestic abuse, and then gain a financial advantage from their failed marriage - after failing for months to lure him into an argument where he conducted himself in an abusive manner; she actually went out and purchased brand new lingerie and laid it out all over the bed - after spending the previous night at her sister's house (without telling her husband so he would think the worse) - so that when her husband came home from work the next day, and after she completely ignored all "where were you last night" questions, he would think she cheated on him, and then (hopefully) yell at her; manufacturing a domestic abuse situation. My lawyer friend uncovered all this over the span of a 18 month pre-trial enquiry and when it all came out in the trial . . boy were there some . . lawyers, clients, and other women's help workers, looking very embarrassed. Nevertheless, despite the plethora of evidence that she was doing this; still her (female) lawyer, the children's lawyer (female layer, appointed by her lawyer), the family report writer (female psychologist appointed by her lawyer) and all the involved women's help agencies (all females that this woman talked to) and also all their staff, never failed to look the other way. As they were all seemingly too scared to see the case for what it really was, for fear of highlighting not only what they all collectively do - but also just how easily and frequent the domestic abuse laws and "system" was, itself, being abused. Over here the women's help agencies all get more government funding, the more domestic abuse cases they "manage" and "find". No one, particularly the politicians, asks the hard questions about the statistics for fear of being labelled a domestic abuse supporter. The women's help agencies also happen to have a very, very cosy referral system with lawyers too - so the lawyers whom get referred are hardly likely to flip the lid on what really happens. Sure there are a few really serious and genuine domestic cases, but my solicitor friend estimates that there is 70% that are false and/or non-sensical claims; lawyer's and women's help agencies picnic. From what I have seen and heard both him and his other lawyer colleagues talking about, I'd agree on that statistic. This in turn has created a domestic abuse culture where women know that they will never be held accountable in the family law court for false claims (rarely happens as no-one wants to discover how the system is really being abused by false allegations of abuse) and that there are too many (easy to be had) advantages with the system, to not claim domestic abuse; even if it never happened. Not in the least as all you need to say is "I was scared" or "he yelled at me", and immediately it's domestic abuse and you have the legal upper hand in any relationship/legal matter. Particularly if you're pretty and can cry. In fact, it's so bad that even those alleged to commit murder often have greater rights in that they are considered innocent until proven guilty, and provocation is considered and taken into account. Not with domestic abuse. As soon as the allegation is made the guy is stripped and hung out to dry, no provocation is meaningfully considered, and he is guilty until proven innocent. Such is the combination of the, stigma associated with the allegation and the noise the above-mentioned women's help agencies make. The legal threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt" - which applies to murder - doesn't apply in domestic abuse cases. Same for the philosophy of "better to not put a guilty man in jail, than rush to judgment and place an innocent one in there"; that normally applies to all alleged crimes. The only people that can really fix it are the lawyers that profit from it; so don't hold your breath on that. Meanwhile the very powerful claim that violence against women - of any kind - should not be tolerated, is often wheeled out and presented to anyone whom tried to provide a balanced view on the subject. The "domestic abuse industry" in Australia is estimated to be worth more than $600M per year. I can honestly say that, over the years when I have seen my buddy act in trials, out of the 30 or so family law matters (he does family and criminal law) I have seen him be a barrister for; only about 2 or 3 were really cases where the women's allegations were proved and not just atmospheric claims. Those cases involved just idiot guys that had no idea of anything, including themselves and how to treat women. All the other cases probably belong to an unpopular statistic called "false domestic abuse epidemic". Not in the least as over here the "domestic abuse epidemic" - which is a term the above-mentioned women's help organisations often throw around at budget/funding time - is based on women's domestic abuse allegations; not proven cases of domestic abuse in the courts - which themselves are orders of ten less than the actual allegations that drop out of the women's help organisations - that also not only refer lawyers - but set them up with (domestic abuse ready to claim) clients that are already approved for government legal funding. And, just as the (unpopular) male suicide rates show; it's a sad little broken system that - long term - does far more damage than good. I haven't even touched on how it also creates a plethora of patron saints for real and professional domestic violence victims (a role that some journalists love to play; whilst not looking at all the above facts); again, some usually, either directly or indirectly, funded by the government - that also use women's domestic abuse "allegations" - not proven cases of domestic abuse in the courts - to make a name for themselves and/or seek funding and approval for their existence. Almost all lawyers over here know this. But no-one publicly admits it. Now I don't advocate either genuine domestic abuse or false allegations of it, but perhaps, Beadle and Nichols would do well to look at the big picture. :cool:


-Absy71 :

Storm, everything you have said is spot on here in Oz, I have been a victim of this money making scam for domestic violence, the men have no rights whatsoever, the problem is for most average guys like myself do not have the money nor the time to take it to trial, as they are paying huge amounts in child support. They take a day off work n lose $300 to $400 bucks a day in wages, then solicitor fees on top of that, I was going to fight the accusations against me & go to trial, hell the so called victim, ( I was the one who called police on the phone ) she didn't show upto court ever, a total of 4 times, the crazy thing is most guys accept it without admissions, when it's not even true, I know I did. Personally I think it is a big brother looking at you kinda thing, what I mean by that is their aim is to try & get every man on record as being a domestic abuser, I could be a touch paranoid lol, as I know quite a few guys that this has happened to, a solicitor once told me, the law has boobs


-stormcentre :

Storm, everything you have said is spot on here in Oz, I have been a victim of this money making scam for domestic violence, the men have no rights whatsoever, the problem is for most average guys like myself do not have the money nor the time to take it to trial, as they are paying huge amounts in child support. They take a day off work n lose $300 to $400 bucks a day in wages, then solicitor fees on top of that, I was going to fight the accusations against me & go to trial, hell the so called victim, ( I was the one who called police on the phone ) she didn't show upto court ever, a total of 4 times, the crazy thing is most guys accept it without admissions, when it's not even true, I know I did. Personally I think it is a big brother looking at you kinda thing, what I mean by that is their aim is to try & get every man on record as being a domestic abuser, I could be a touch paranoid lol, as I know quite a few guys that this has happened to, a solicitor once told me, the law has boobs
Yep, it's a very unfair system where almost all the men are treated as if; 1) The (almost always unproven) allegations are true. 2) They are all as that small percentage of real domestically abusive men that really are idiots. At first I didn't believe my barrister friend when he told me all this, and then, after attending some trials and seeing with my own eyes; it is mind boggling. A complete injustice going on via the justice system. Some of the judges are OK (have met them as they're friends with my above-mentioned barrister) and they're just completely hand tied behind back (and genuinely upset) with it all. As they know the justice system and women's help agencies are quite literally being hijacked to destroy families, father's lives, male-intimacy, and ripping children's lives apart too; for the purpose of money. Cash for kids one Australian prim minister rightly called it. One of the big problems with the system is that - before the claims (created/assisted by some of the lawyers and women's help agencies "findings") make it to court and tested they're already doing serious familial damage. Then by the time the matter gets to court many litigants think what they know (after 18 months of meeting family reporters and other female/feminist/cash oriented people/agencies) about how ludicrously bias, unfair, and sometimes corrupt the system is, will blow their ex-partner's case out of the water. But, in court it's not what you know. It's what you can prove. So, the guys then find themselves looking like they spent all their time trying to condemn the mother and prove she is lying (which statistically she may be); which plays perfectly into the hands of the ex-partner and/or women's attorney and claims; even if you don't consider how the children are always meant to be the priority and focus - even though the lawyers don't always follow that protocol. In effect the women's help agencies (almost all women) and the family reporter writers (almost all women) and all the other feminist organisations that help women escape the epidemic of evil wicked Australian men that we are statistically told is 1 in 4 guys (think about that ridiculous claim?); perform the function of tormenting the men and ensuring they (unless they know the law, and have a lawyer) arrive to court just as above stated. It's a very broken and (for greed riddled lawyers and women's help agencies) "clever" system. No one will look deeply at it though, as then people would discover what atrocity is really taking place with tax payer's money; governmentally funded secrecy in relation to not just covering up thousands of female/feminist oriented false domestic abuse claims - but also what these people are doing to good fathers and men. My Barrister friend wanted to years ago give up family law trials (he doesn't prepare the cases as he doesn't work as a solicitor anymore; although he has that qualification) but he had a bad experience. He said no to a guy that claimed he was being set up by his wife. Let's just call me friend "Steve". Steve, for valid personal reasons could not take the case. The matter went to court and this guy's partner went through all the same women's help agencies as above-mentioned/posted. The guy went to court without a defence. The mother's claims were horrendous (as is almost always the case) and the guy couldn't disprove any of them. The mother failed to prove any of her allegations too; but she had a free lawyer (via the same women's help agencies as above-mentioned/posted) and all the same women's help agencies as above-mentioned/posted and their supporting "reports" - of which all were based on the mother's claims (and of course the above-mentioned money trails). The guy lost everything; kids included. 2 weeks later he threw himself off an overpass of a bridge. 3 months later a friend of the mother's comes in and "abuses" Steve telling him all you had to do was ask me about how the mother had done the same thing to her 2 previous partners. Now I don't advocate either genuine domestic abuse or false allegations of it, but welcome to the real deal of domestic abuse Beadle and Nichols. We don't have this injustice system in Russia, but my bet would be that they do in the USA and that all patron saints of domestic abuse (claims) would do well to look at the big picture. Problem is, if they did that, they wouldn't like what they see, and what it says about both women and men. The first base starting position is for the above-mentioned women's help agencies and some lawyers to stop making the domestic abuse issue a gender driven issue. The second base starting position is to use the legally proven domestic abuse claims as the statistic, and not just the unsubstantiated claims. The third base starting position is to provide men with the equivalent of the above-mentioned women's help agencies and some genuinely free lawyers. Stay cool with it if you can.


-Absy71 :

Yep, it's a very unfair system where almost all the men are treated as if; 1) The (almost always unproven) allegations are true. 2) They are all as that small percentage of real domestically abusive men that really are idiots. At first I didn't believe my barrister friend when he told me all this, and then, after attending some trials and seeing with my own eyes; it is mind boggling. A complete injustice going on via the justice system. Some of the judges are OK (have met them as they're friends with my above-mentioned barrister) and they're just completely hand tied behind back (and genuinely upset) with it all. As they know the justice system and women's help agencies are quite literally being hijacked to destroy families, father's lives, male-intimacy, and ripping children's lives apart too; for the purpose of money. Cash for kids one Australian prim minister rightly called it. One of the big problems with the system is that - before the claims (created/assisted by some of the lawyers and women's help agencies "findings") make it to court and tested they're already doing serious familial damage. Then by the time the matter gets to court many litigants think what they know (after 18 months of meeting family reporters and other female/feminist/cash oriented people/agencies) about how ludicrously bias, unfair, and sometimes corrupt the system is, will blow their ex-partner's case out of the water. But, in court it's not what you know. It's what you can prove. So, the guys then find themselves looking like they spent all their time trying to condemn the mother and prove she is lying (which statistically she may be); which plays perfectly into the hands of the ex-partner and/or women's attorney and claims; even if you don't consider how the children are always meant to be the priority and focus - even though the lawyers don't always follow that protocol. In effect the women's help agencies (almost all women) and the family reporter writers (almost all women) and all the other feminist organisations that help women escape the epidemic of evil wicked Australian men that we are statistically told is 1 in 4 guys (think about that ridiculous claim?); perform the function of tormenting the men and ensuring they (unless they know the law, and have a lawyer) arrive to court just as above stated. It's a very broken and (for greed riddled lawyers and women's help agencies) "clever" system. No one will look deeply at it though, as then people would discover what atrocity is really taking place with tax payer's money; governmentally funded secrecy in relation to not just covering up thousands of female/feminist oriented false domestic abuse claims - but also what these people are doing to good fathers and men. My Barrister friend wanted to years ago give up family law trials (he doesn't prepare the cases as he doesn't work as a solicitor anymore; although he has that qualification) but he had a bad experience. He said no to a guy that claimed he was being set up by his wife. Let's just call me friend "Steve". Steve, for valid personal reasons could not take the case. The matter went to court and this guy's partner went through all the same women's help agencies as above-mentioned/posted. The guy went to court without a defence. The mother's claims were horrendous (as is almost always the case) and the guy couldn't disprove any of them. The mother failed to prove any of her allegations too; but she had a free lawyer (via the same women's help agencies as above-mentioned/posted) and all the same women's help agencies as above-mentioned/posted and their supporting "reports" - of which all were based on the mother's claims (and of course the above-mentioned money trails). The guy lost everything; kids included. 2 weeks later he threw himself off an overpass of a bridge. 3 months later a friend of the mother's comes in and "abuses" Steve telling him all you had to do was ask me about how the mother had done the same thing to her 2 previous partners. Now I don't advocate either genuine domestic abuse or false allegations of it, but welcome to the real deal of domestic abuse Beadle and Nichols. We don't have this injustice system in Russia, but my bet would be that they do in the USA and that all patron saints of domestic abuse (claims) would do well to look at the big picture. Problem is, if they did that, they wouldn't like what they see, and what it says about both women and men. The first base starting position is for the above-mentioned women's help agencies and some lawyers to stop making the domestic abuse issue a gender driven issue. The second base starting position is to use the legally proven domestic abuse claims as the statistic, and not just the unsubstantiated claims. The third base starting position is to provide men with the equivalent of the above-mentioned women's help agencies and some genuinely free lawyers. Stay cool with it if you can.
Storm, I'm all cool with it, & a lot more wiser for it. Another of life's lessons. Cheers


-Kid Blast :

Stormcenter rules


-brownsugar :

Kudos to your comprehensive observations Storm... Your excellent comments have allowed me to reschedule the hour it would have taken me to one-finger-type my personal ordeal (preferrably with the middle finger) about the unbalanced and heavily biased women's abuse industry that allows virtual total strangers to make unsubstantiated blanket comments about a persons character without having the slightest scintilla of evidence to support their claims. The feelings of my experience of dealing with the ambulance chasing, grandstanding scum who make a living by making sweeping accusations off decades old hastily scrawled court documents are still too strong to even speak on in partiality, or I would surely unleash a torrent of pent up emotional anguish that would transform one of my fingers into a bloody stump before I was finished typing my 5 part novelette explaining my ordeal into the cell phone. Suffice to say the case was thrown out and my accuser has been trying to ingratiate herself into my life ever since. My acuser attends the church I visit....where I never gave the pastor, or other members a single word of explanation of the circumstances in defense of my position......even through the cold handshakes, loathesome leers, and silent finger pointing that continued well over a year after charges were dropped. But over time people can't help but to know you for who you are and they soon saw my emotionally unstable accuser for who she really is as a person and in the end it became a non issue. I have neither sympathy or hate for the clueless publicity seeking reporters mentioned in this article but I feel their understanding of domestic violence is even less than the credibility provided in the two dimensional caricatures that they struggle to present in their shallow cliche ridden alarmist tainted articles.


-deepwater2 :

Dudes ,give these women reporters some slack. Let them ask uncomfortable questions it's ok. Where there is smoke there is fire. Now listen up, I have my own experience with rotten hoes and the system. I never beat a woman but in one case I wanted to. Years ago I gave a chick a ride home a couple times. She tried to do me a favor but I was to drunk to bother. 4 years after giving her some rides home my mom had a sheriff at her house with a court order and a pistol despite the fact I haven't lived in my childhood home for years. The thing was the girl had a 4 year old baby and blamed me so she could get benefits because I made 6 figures. My friend and lawyer is a Supreme Court lawyer that deals with RIcO and he said he was never more disgusted with this family court racket. My DNA test saved me but along the way I saw how bad the system was. The court said no problem if your not the daddy, just give us your info and we will take 40% of your check and refund you if you are in the clear. My mob lawyer said no way and I beat the test ,but the system wanted its money. He rather fight the Feds than the family court. The girl said later on the system pressured her for a name and she remembered mine despite that I had nothing to do with it. The system is f ed up but after court the facts come out. Floyd beat those women.period. Don't bother with dirty women or you will have a problem.


-Radam G :

Dudes ,give these women reporters some slack. Let them ask uncomfortable questions it's ok. Where there is smoke there is fire. Now listen up, I have my own experience with rotten hoes and the system. I never beat a woman but in one case I wanted to. Years ago I gave a chick a ride home a couple times. She tried to do me a favor but I was to drunk to bother. 4 years after giving her some rides home my mom had a sheriff at her house with a court order and a pistol despite the fact I haven't lived in my childhood home for years. The thing was the girl had a 4 year old baby and blamed me so she could get benefits because I made 6 figures. My friend and lawyer is a Supreme Court lawyer that deals with RIcO and he said he was never more disgusted with this family court racket. My DNA test saved me but along the way I saw how bad the system was. The court said no problem if your not the daddy, just give us your info and we will take 40% of your check and refund you if you are in the clear. My mob lawyer said no way and I beat the test ,but the system wanted its money. He rather fight the Feds than the family court. The girl said later on the system pressured her for a name and she remembered mine despite that I had nothing to do with it. The system is f ed up but after court the facts come out. Floyd beat those women.period. Don't bother with dirty women or you will have a problem.
I hear ya! Amen! Floyd dug his own metaphoric grave. Now to it, he is a slave. Once you hit them, you are a man punkified bytch. And you are going to be fudged with at your every hitch. Life is a bytch! And then you die! Lil Floyd should not have ever made that babies' momma cry. And on her, do not lie. Holla!


-stormcentre :

Storm, I'm all cool with it, & a lot more wiser for it. Another of life's lessons. Cheers
Thanks Absy. A few more thoughts . . . let me just put my lawyer typing timer on for another slow typing poster here . . .OK, here goes.... Add to the above
a 4th base starting position which is the implementation of a recorded and checkable (by print and law) procedure where all women's help agencies check for false allegation and the lack of material proof; before proceeding and spending government funds - accountability. The questionnaire can be analogous to the NSAC kind that Pac/Kontz/Arum/Roach recently "accidentally" bungled, which would probably suffice as a starting position. Perhaps the document can finally be signed off with a point where the "case worker" declares whether she sought comment from the "alleged perpetrator". "Cases" could then be rated with another metric that (implicitly, at a later date) defined the quality of "evidence" associated with the "allegation" and claim, and from there these agencies could have some traceability and financial accountability hung around their necks; in the sense that each allegation formed a business case that they themselves were actually responsible for - as opposed to (with the false and not genuine claims), perhaps just a pretty girl crying about how her plans for unexpected (and sometimes ambushed) pregnancy did not go as (financially) planned. It happens a lot !!!!! Add
a 5th base starting position to the above, that constitutes a police and legal document that the police must get the "aggrieved" to sign before she completes her domestic abuse paperwork, allegation, and possibly walks off with the kids - whilst the father is "distracted" with the domestic abuse allegation. If she then, later, breaches this agreement she is liable, the human rights laws related to equal parent ownership immediately applies, and her allegation is viewed in that context. Call the document "Kids for cash" if you like :) but that document too must have similar questions to the above-mentioned "women's help agencies check for false allegations and the lack of material proof" document. Then the 2 above documents can go together and be available to all parties within any subsequent legal matter; to see how the "story" (but not necessarily evidence) grew as the actual matter itself grew older. You see the false allegations almost always grow as the matter becomes legal and progresses; but this is rarely checked in the context of the mother's reliability and on those rare occasions where it is and the mother is found to have lied, nothing is done. The document the police are compelled to get the "aggrieved" (whether they're men, women, or in between) to sign must always have a legal declaration that records/states where (if at all) the "aggrieved" intends to take the children on the back of her domestic abuse allegation, and why the children must be removed from their father. This important information (along with the evidence of the alleged crime the "aggrieved" presents) can then be used to both facilitate a better legal understanding, and also assess how well the police "assisted" and "diminished" both parties. It can also be used to assess how the claims pertaining to the children and father that are often used for legal advantages once the parties lawyer up, were and/or were not present when the initial "allegation" was formed. Add
a 6th base starting position to the above, that holds both parties accountable for perjury (in, at least the same context as most fathers in receipt of false allegations are treated guilty right off the bat of any female based allegation) like any decent courtroom does and should. Add
a 7th base starting position to the above, that considers the way - some - women financially implicate men as economic abuse. Dontcha love that one? Why can't that apply? I can't take credit for all the detail within the above ideas, as some comes from my barrister mate. In any regard, the above would not hinder genuine domestic abuse claims, but it would certainly deter quite a few false ones and expose what the women's help agencies and some lawyers are doing; which is why it like waiting for "stantiation" in some parts round here. :) My opinion; the system is, percentage-wise and in relation to the real proven cases (and their allegations) of abuse, mostly a scam purporting to be something else on the back of the small percentage of (but still very stigmatic) genuine abuse allegations (and the possibility of that happening if serious, but outside of most democratic and/or legal constitutions, action is not taken) that are perpetuated by men whom are fools, overly aggressive, possibly with substance/alcohol issues, and idiots. The rest of the allegations relate to men out there are good cats, but had an argument with their partner. Let's leave this on a humorous note . . . .if it's at all possible . . . In one of the 3 day trials I attended to where barrister "Steve" represented the accused . . . (whom was a hardworking bricklayer . . .of whom his partner of 14 years had absolutely no evidence to support all her claims . . . but, over the course of the pre-trail period (about 2.5 years) she and her lawyers (1) had all but completely devastated his life - taken his kids from him (2) - ensured the whole town that they lived in thought - or felt they should think/act - as if he was a women beater (3)). . the "accused" sat in the courtroom with nothing left, nothing more to lose . . just absolutely exhausted . . . He said, ""I don't understand this system, I have nothing left, no money, no credibility, no life, no family, no kids that I see regularly anymore, . . . yet I became a bricklayer and moved to this town because we had a family and got married . . I have never hurt my wife and she has never proven that even though it is the basis for all her claims and the current situation that has resulted from it both in and out of the courts, so what can the court do for me that will repair all this, or don't I matter"?" It was really sad and that's why I have never forgotten it. You could tell this guy was a really nice guy that just had had the absolute character and soul beaten out of him by the "process" and "system". The judge knowingly looked at the women's lawyers and said nothing; as they all know what goes on. The judges look over the brim of his glasses conveyed so much information and disgust that it was extremely moving. The father was a reasonably famous local footballer that had been in the paper because he turned down an offer to play in the big league because of . . . get this . . . his family. Yep !!! The accused guy continued . . . ""now I know that the mother's lawyers will tell you today that the children have been with her for almost 2 years now and that I must work to support them, her and me, and in that order, so given all that . . it seems to me that there is no motivation for the courts to even consider my case and/or reverse what damage has already happened; let alone look at what she has said that is false, and done off the back of that"". It was a compelling statement. The judge tucked his bottom lip up over the top one, looked sad, and said nothing. "Steve" tried to hush his client (the accused guy) up afraid that the judge would take it all as an insult that the courts were party to what goes on, and you could hear the guy quietly reject that and say, ""no, I have had enough, what more can they do to me now? If I never say what I want to here and now, then I will never forgive myself and never be able to look my children in the eyes when they grow up and say your Dad tried to stop this insaneness"". The guy then says loudly to the judge. . . ""You can do a lot of horrible things to a man whilst he is accused of domestic abuse and waiting for his chance to be heard - even abuse him. . . . and one other thing, why is when I tell my wife that she is an idiot for doing this and wasting our money . . which is how this whole thing started . . . I am abusing her - but not she me when she yells at me? How can you not be an idiot for falsely accusing your husband of abuse and splitting the family up on that basis?"" He continued . . . (and this is the funny bit; sorry it took a while) . . "Aren't you basically creating a law whereby us men are unfairly punished for telling the truth . . how can you say they are not idiots sometimes, when you can't even get the courage to look at all the false allegations and do something about whilst it's meant to be against the law to lie in court and to the police". He completed the tirade with this gem (which didn't help {or hinder} his case) before his tears came through; "she just does my head in . . all the things she has done and I never said or did anything about that . . . . there out to be a law against that . . it's too much". Confession; I was there in that hearing to support him as I knew him, he and the judge knew me from boxing, and I knew he was innocent; he was not a woman beater. I later got him a job in a boxing gym that better suited him time arrangements with his wonderful children. OK, total typing time = 23mins and 23 secs. ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------
Legend 1) And all the above-posted-mentioned associated "women's help services" the lawyers use to build their cases; under the guise of "aggrieved and/or child safety/support/planning. 2) Apparently because he was too aggressive for them to be with him - despite the children being taken before the matter went to court and any allegation was actually proven - so then, in turn, the courts, when the matter finally gets there, now see that family circumstance as the normal position when contemplating where the kids should go - even though it is a life changing (for all) situation (that usually serves the mother and destroys men) created by non proven allegations; that has tormented the father for the entire duration prior to (and probably after) the trial. 3) The actual domestic abuse allegation itself is often far, far, more powerful than the actual legalities of the matter and that's why I came up with the idea for the above points years ago after seeing all this stuff go down time and time again. Even if the guy, later, once the matter has gone to court, proves both his innocence and that the mother falsely accused him, most people will still support their previous misconceptions and views (like a PacLoss) because they're afraid of what it says about them; so now the guy is wrongly accused, without a family, poor, beaten up by the "system", and treated as if he bashed his wife - even though he didn't. Now here is the kicker (that the courts don't want to know about) related to point 3; now there is little or no difference (to the surreal circumstance the guy finds himself in) to a real domestically abusive person . . . and this consideration is critical . . . because it's how the system manufactures domestically abusive men . . as some men (perhaps justifiably) can't - after waiting for their time in court and proving the mother's allegations are false - handle all this, how some laws don't apply and other do but only when it suits, and then . . if the mother on the back of all that and her "win" then gloats . . it's too much . . . the father can then crack as the pressure is too much. . . . then when that matter gets to court the mother's lawyers use that lapse of judgment (under extreme duress and conditions) to justify the previous false allegation and also the lawyers and women's help agencies' earlier lack of scrutinisation. And, in that circumstance the courts are then compelled to act on evidence (even though they didn't before; but they never consider their own lapse of judgments unless its an appeal the father brings forward - which would be another trial he could not afford even before the last legal matter, unless he wanted to get slugged for not paying child support . . . see how the system works) and convict another aggressive and domestically abusive man, and the cycle repeats.
Rinse and repeat baby.
Late night show host says: ""Wow there's a real problem in society today with all these domestically abusive men isn't there""?
Female "patron saint journalist" looking to increase her twitter account hit; stands up and says on national television without even knowing the facts ""yes there sure is, no abuse at all should ever be tolerated"".
Female "patron saint journalist" looking to increase her twitter account hit; completes above comment and then silently thinks; ""now where is the back door so I can flee the broadcast station before anyone asks me about false allegations and the fact checking I have done"". ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------
StormCentre Social Avenger Even In NonPacEvenHandedness Matters.


-stormcentre :

Storm, I'm all cool with it, & a lot more wiser for it. Another of life's lessons. Cheers
Thanks Absy. A few more thoughts . . . let me just put my lawyer typing timer on for this slow typing poster here . . .OK, here goes.... Add to the above
a 4th base starting position which is the implementation of a recorded and checkable (by print and law) procedure where all women's help agencies check for false allegation and the lack of material proof; before proceeding and spending government funds - accountability. The questionnaire can be analogous to the NSAC kind that Pac/Kontz/Arum/Roach recently "accidentally" bungled, which would probably suffice as a starting position. Perhaps the document can finally be signed off with a point where the "case worker" declares whether she sought comment from the "alleged perpetrator". "Cases" could then be rated with another metric that (implicitly, at a later date) defined the quality of "evidence" associated with the "allegation" and claim, and from there these agencies could have some traceability and financial accountability hung around their necks; in the sense that each allegation formed a business case that they themselves were actually responsible for - as opposed to (with the false and not genuine claims), perhaps just a pretty girl crying about how her plans for unexpected (and sometimes ambushed) pregnancy did not go as (financially) planned. It happens a lot !!!!! Add
a 5th base starting position to the above, that constitutes a police and legal document that the police must get the "aggrieved" to sign before she completes her domestic abuse paperwork, allegation, and possibly walks off with the kids - whilst the father is "distracted" with the domestic abuse allegation. If she then, later, breaches this agreement she is liable, the human rights laws related to equal parent ownership immediately applies, and her allegation is viewed in that context. Call the document "Kids for cash" if you like :) but that document too must have similar questions to the above-mentioned "women's help agencies check for false allegations and the lack of material proof" document. Then the 2 above documents can go together and be available to all parties within any subsequent legal matter; to see how the "story" (but not necessarily evidence) grew as the actual matter itself grew older. You see the false allegations almost always grow as the matter becomes legal and progresses; but this is rarely checked in the context of the mother's reliability and on those rare occasions where it is and the mother is found to have lied, nothing is done. The document the police are compelled to get the "aggrieved" (whether they're men, women, or in between) to sign must always have a legal declaration that records/states where (if at all) the "aggrieved" intends to take the children on the back of her domestic abuse allegation, and why the children must be removed from their father. This important information (along with the evidence of the alleged crime the "aggrieved" presents) can then be used to both facilitate a better legal understanding, and also assess how well the police "assisted" and "diminished" both parties. It can also be used to assess how the claims pertaining to the children and father that are often used for legal advantages once the parties lawyer up, were and/or were not present when the initial "allegation" was formed. Add
a 6th base starting position to the above, that holds both parties accountable for perjury (in, at least the same context as most fathers in receipt of false allegations are treated guilty right off the bat of any female based allegation) like any decent courtroom does and should. Add
a 7th base starting position to the above, that considers the way - some - women financially implicate men as economic abuse. Dontcha love that one? Why can't that apply? I can't take credit for all the detail within the above ideas, as some comes from my barrister mate. In any regard, the above would not hinder genuine domestic abuse claims, but it would certainly deter quite a few false ones and expose what the women's help agencies and some lawyers are doing; which is why it like waiting for "stantiation" in some parts round here. :) My opinion; the system is, percentage-wise and in relation to the real proven cases (and their allegations) of abuse, mostly a scam purporting to be something else on the back of the small percentage of (but still very stigmatic) genuine abuse allegations (and the possibility of that happening if serious, but outside of most democratic and/or legal constitutions, action is not taken) that are perpetuated by men whom are fools, overly aggressive, possibly with substance/alcohol issues, and idiots. The rest of the allegations relate to men out there are good cats, but had an argument with their partner. Let's leave this on a humorous note . . . .if it's at all possible . . . In one of the 3 day trials I attended to where barrister "Steve" represented the accused . . . (whom was a hardworking bricklayer . . .of whom his partner of 14 years had absolutely no evidence to support all her claims . . . but, over the course of the pre-trail period (about 2.5 years) she and her lawyers (1) had all but completely devastated his life - taken his kids from him (2) - ensured the whole town that they lived in thought - or felt they should think/act - as if he was a women beater (3)). . the "accused" sat in the courtroom with nothing left, nothing more to lose . . just absolutely exhausted . . . He said, ""I don't understand this system, I have nothing left, no money, no credibility, no life, no family, no kids that I see regularly anymore, . . . yet I became a bricklayer and moved to this town because we had a family and got married . . I have never hurt my wife and she has never proven that even though it is the basis for all her claims and the current situation that has resulted from it both in and out of the courts, so what can the court do for me that will repair all this, or don't I matter"?" It was really sad and that's why I have never forgotten it. You could tell this guy was a really nice guy that just had had the absolute character and soul beaten out of him by the "process" and "system". The judge knowingly looked at the women's lawyers and said nothing; as they all know what goes on. The judges look over the brim of his glasses conveyed so much information and disgust that it was extremely moving. The father was a reasonably famous local footballer that had been in the paper because he turned down an offer to play in the big league because of . . . get this . . . his family. Yep !!! The accused guy continued . . . ""now I know that the mother's lawyers will tell you today that the children have been with her for almost 2 years now and that I must work to support them, her and me, and in that order, so given all that . . it seems to me that there is no motivation for the courts to even consider my case and/or reverse what damage has already happened; let alone look at what she has said that is false, and done off the back of that"". It was a compelling statement. The judge tucked his bottom lip up over the top one, looked sad, and said nothing. "Steve" tried to hush his client (the accused guy) up afraid that the judge would take it all as an insult that the courts were party to what goes on, and you could hear the guy quietly reject that and say, ""no, I have had enough, what more can they do to me now? If I never say what I want to here and now, then I will never forgive myself and never be able to look my children in the eyes when they grow up and say your Dad tried to stop this insaneness"". The guy then says loudly to the judge. . . ""You can do a lot of horrible things to a man whilst he is accused of domestic abuse and waiting for his chance to be heard - even abuse him. . . . and one other thing, why is when I tell my wife that she is an idiot for doing this and wasting our money . . which is how this whole thing started . . . I am abusing her - but not she me when she yells at me? How can you not be an idiot for falsely accusing your husband of abuse and splitting the family up on that basis?"" He continued . . . (and this is the funny bit; sorry it took a while) . . "Aren't you basically creating a law whereby us men are unfairly punished for telling the truth . . how can you say they are not idiots sometimes, when you can't even get the courage to look at all the false allegations and do something about whilst it's meant to be against the law to lie in court and to the police". He completed the tirade with this gem (which didn't help {or hinder} his case) before his tears came through; "she just does my head in . . all the things she has done and I never said or did anything about that . . . . there out to be a law against that . . it's too much". Confession; I was there in that hearing to support him as I knew him, he and the judge knew me from boxing, and I knew he was innocent; he was not a woman beater. I later got him a job in a boxing gym that better suited him time arrangements with his wonderful children. OK, total typing time = 23mins and 23 secs. ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------
Legend 1) And all the above-posted-mentioned associated "women's help services" the lawyers use to build their cases; under the guise of "aggrieved and/or child safety/support/planning. 2) Apparently because he was too aggressive for them to be with him - despite the children being taken before the matter went to court and any allegation was actually proven - so then, in turn, the courts, when the matter finally gets there, now see that family circumstance as the normal position when contemplating where the kids should go - even though it is a life changing (for all) situation (that usually serves the mother and destroys men) created by non proven allegations; that has tormented the father for the entire duration prior to (and probably after) the trial. 3) The actual domestic abuse allegation itself is often far, far, more powerful than the actual legalities of the matter and that's why I came up with the idea for the above points years ago after seeing all this stuff go down time and time again. Even if the guy, later, once the matter has gone to court, proves both his innocence and that the mother falsely accused him, most people will still support their previous misconceptions and views (like a PacLoss) because they're afraid of what it says about them; so now the guy is wrongly accused, without a family, poor, beaten up by the "system", and treated as if he bashed his wife - even though he didn't. Now here is the kicker (that the courts don't want to know about) related to point 3; now there is little or no difference (to the surreal circumstance the guy finds himself in) to a real domestically abusive person . . . and this consideration is critical . . . because it's how the system manufactures domestically abusive men . . as some men (perhaps justifiably) can't - after waiting for their time in court and proving the mother's allegations are false - handle all this, how some laws don't apply and other do but only when it suits, and then . . if the mother on the back of all that and her "win" then gloats . . it's too much . . . the father can then crack as the pressure is too much. . . . then when that matter gets to court the mother's lawyers use that lapse of judgment (under extreme duress and conditions) to justify the previous false allegation and also the lawyers and women's help agencies' earlier lack of scrutinisation. And, in that circumstance the courts are then compelled to act on evidence (even though they didn't before; but they never consider their own lapse of judgments unless its an appeal the father brings forward - which would be another trial he could not afford even before the last legal matter, unless he wanted to get slugged for not paying child support . . . see how the system works) and convict another aggressive and domestically abusive man, and the cycle repeats.
Rinse and repeat baby.
Late night show host says: ""Wow there's a real problem in society today with all these domestically abusive men isn't there""?
Female "patron saint journalist" looking to increase her twitter account hit; stands up and says on national television without even knowing the facts ""yes there sure is, no abuse at all should ever be tolerated"".
Female "patron saint journalist" looking to increase her twitter account hit; completes above comment and then silently thinks; ""now where is the back door so I can flee the broadcast station before anyone asks me about false allegations and the fact checking I have done"". ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------
StormCentre Social Avenger Even In NonPacEvenHandedness Matters.


-brownsugar :

Dudes ,give these women reporters some slack. Let them ask uncomfortable questions it's ok. Where there is smoke there is fire. Now listen up, I have my own experience with rotten hoes and the system. I never beat a woman but in one case I wanted to. Years ago I gave a chick a ride home a couple times. She tried to do me a favor but I was to drunk to bother. 4 years after giving her some rides home my mom had a sheriff at her house with a court order and a pistol despite the fact I haven't lived in my childhood home for years. The thing was the girl had a 4 year old baby and blamed me so she could get benefits because I made 6 figures. My friend and lawyer is a Supreme Court lawyer that deals with RIcO and he said he was never more disgusted with this family court racket. My DNA test saved me but along the way I saw how bad the system was. The court said no problem if your not the daddy, just give us your info and we will take 40% of your check and refund you if you are in the clear. My mob lawyer said no way and I beat the test ,but the system wanted its money. He rather fight the Feds than the family court. The girl said later on the system pressured her for a name and she remembered mine despite that I had nothing to do with it. The system is f ed up but after court the facts come out. Floyd beat those women.period. Don't bother with dirty women or you will have a problem.
Dude..... Floyd's conviction is not the issue... The issue is .....time has been served over two years ago. Its a non issue... To try to use his previous conviction to as a platform to launch an anti abuse platform is as low as it goes. Mike Tyson was recently bushwhacked the same way. He appeared on a local TV show to promote an entirely different topic. The announcer changed the topic and out of nowhere said Mike...you were convicted of rape...how do you feel about..... Tyson just looked at the announcer and said eff you. When ever the announcer came back to Tyson his only answer was eff you. I have no problem with uncomfortable questions but when you get invited to a show to promote a fight and some bimbo reporter tries to undermine your event... Make personal judgement calls about your character and then cut the mic before you can even answer the question. Yeah.... I got issues with that... That's as wrong as the abuse Floyd was tried and convicted of.


-stormcentre :

Storm, I'm all cool with it, & a lot more wiser for it. Another of life's lessons. Cheers
Thanks Absy. A few more thoughts . . . let me just put my lawyer typing timer on for this slow typing poster here . . .OK, here goes.... Add to the above
a 4th base starting position which is the implementation of a recorded and checkable (by print and law) procedure where all women's help agencies check for false allegation and the lack of material proof; before proceeding and spending government funds - accountability. The questionnaire can be analogous to the NSAC kind that Pac/Kontz/Arum/Roach recently "accidentally" bungled, which would probably suffice as a starting position. Perhaps the document can finally be signed off with a point where the "case worker" declares whether she sought comment from the "alleged perpetrator". "Cases" could then be rated with another metric that (implicitly, at a later date) defined the quality of "evidence" associated with the "allegation" and claim, and from there these agencies could have some traceability and financial accountability hung around their necks; in the sense that each allegation formed a business case that they themselves were actually responsible for - as opposed to (with the false and not genuine claims), perhaps just a pretty girl crying about how her plans for unexpected (and sometimes ambushed) pregnancy did not go as (financially) planned. It happens a lot !!!!! Add
a 5th base starting position to the above, that constitutes a police and legal document that the police must get the "aggrieved" to sign before she completes her domestic abuse paperwork, allegation, and possibly walks off with the kids - whilst the father is "distracted" with the domestic abuse allegation. If she then, later, breaches this agreement she is liable, the human rights laws related to equal parent ownership immediately applies, and her allegation is viewed in that context. Call the document "Kids for cash" if you like :) but that document too must have similar questions to the above-mentioned "women's help agencies check for false allegations and the lack of material proof" document. Then the 2 above documents can go together and be available to all parties within any subsequent legal matter; to see how the "story" (but not necessarily evidence) grew as the actual matter itself grew older. You see the false allegations almost always grow as the matter becomes legal and progresses; but this is rarely checked in the context of the mother's reliability and on those rare occasions where it is and the mother is found to have lied, nothing is done. The document the police are compelled to get the "aggrieved" (whether they're men, women, or in between) to sign must always have a legal declaration that records/states where (if at all) the "aggrieved" intends to take the children on the back of her domestic abuse allegation, and why the children must be removed from their father. This important information (along with the evidence of the alleged crime the "aggrieved" presents) can then be used to both facilitate a better legal understanding, and also assess how well the police "assisted" and "diminished" both parties. It can also be used to assess how the claims pertaining to the children and father that are often used for legal advantages once the parties lawyer up, were and/or were not present when the initial "allegation" was formed. Add
a 6th base starting position to the above, that holds both parties accountable for perjury (in, at least the same context as most fathers in receipt of false allegations are treated guilty right off the bat of any female based allegation) like any decent courtroom does and should. Add
a 7th base starting position to the above, that considers the way - some - women financially implicate men as economic abuse. Dontcha love that one? Why can't that apply? I can't take credit for all the detail within the above ideas, as some comes from my barrister mate. In any regard, the above would not hinder genuine domestic abuse claims, but it would certainly deter quite a few false ones and expose what the women's help agencies and some lawyers are doing; which is why it like waiting for "stantiation" in some parts round here. :) My opinion; the system is, percentage-wise and in relation to the real proven cases (and their allegations) of abuse, mostly a scam purporting to be something else on the back of the small percentage of (but still very stigmatic) genuine abuse allegations (and the possibility of that happening if serious, but outside of most democratic and/or legal constitutions, action is not taken) that are perpetuated by men whom are fools, overly aggressive, possibly with substance/alcohol issues, and idiots. The rest of the allegations relate to men out there are good cats, but had an argument with their partner. Let's leave this on a humorous note . . . .if it's at all possible . . . In one of the 3 day trials I attended to where barrister "Steve" represented the accused . . . (whom was a hardworking bricklayer . . .of whom his partner of 14 years had absolutely no evidence to support all her claims . . . but, over the course of the pre-trail period (about 2.5 years) she and her lawyers
(1 see below legend) had all but completely devastated his life - taken his kids from him
(2) - ensured the whole town that they lived in thought - or felt they should think/act - as if he was a women beater
(3) ). . the "accused" sat in the courtroom with nothing left, nothing more to lose . . just absolutely exhausted . . . He said, ""I don't understand this system, I have nothing left, no money, no credibility, no life, no family, no kids that I see regularly anymore, . . . yet I became a bricklayer and moved to this town because we had a family and got married . . I have never hurt my wife and she has never proven that even though it is the basis for all her claims and the current situation that has resulted from it both in and out of the courts, so what can the court do for me that will repair all this, or don't I matter"?" It was really sad and that's why I have never forgotten it. You could tell this guy was a really nice guy that just had had the absolute character and soul beaten out of him by the "process" and "system". The judge knowingly looked at the women's lawyers and said nothing; as they all know what goes on. The judges look over the brim of his glasses conveyed so much information and disgust that it was extremely moving. The father was a reasonably famous local footballer that had been in the paper because he turned down an offer to play in the big league because of . . . get this . . . his family. Yep !!! The accused guy continued . . . ""now I know that the mother's lawyers will tell you today that the children have been with her for almost 2 years now and that I must work to support them, her and me, and in that order, so given all that . . it seems to me that there is no motivation for the courts to even consider my case and/or reverse what damage has already happened; let alone look at what she has said that is false, and done off the back of that"". It was a compelling statement. The judge tucked his bottom lip up over the top one, looked sad, and said nothing. "Steve" tried to hush his client (the accused guy) up afraid that the judge would take it all as an insult that the courts were party to what goes on, and you could hear the guy quietly reject that and say, ""no, I have had enough, what more can they do to me now? If I never say what I want to here and now, then I will never forgive myself and never be able to look my children in the eyes when they grow up and say your Dad tried to stop this insaneness"". The guy then says loudly to the judge. . . ""You can do a lot of horrible things to a man whilst he is accused of domestic abuse and waiting for his chance to be heard - even abuse him. . . . and one other thing, why is when I tell my wife that she is an idiot for doing this and wasting our money . . which is how this whole thing started . . . I am abusing her - but not she me when she yells at me? How can you not be an idiot for falsely accusing your husband of abuse and splitting the family up on that basis?"" He continued . . . (and this is the funny bit; sorry it took a while) . . ""Aren't you basically creating a law whereby us men are unfairly punished for telling the truth . . how can you say they are not idiots sometimes, when you can't even get the courage to look at all the false allegations and do something about whilst it's meant to be against the law to lie in court and to the police"". He completed the tirade with this gem (which didn't help {or hinder} his case) before his tears came through; "she just does my head in . . all the things she has done and I never said or did anything about that . . . . there out to be a law against that . . it's too much".
Confession; I was there in that hearing to support him as I knew him, he and the judge knew me from boxing, and I knew he was innocent; he was not a woman beater. I later got him a job in a boxing gym that better suited him time arrangements with his wonderful children. OK, total typing time = 23mins and 23 secs. ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------
Legend 1) And all the above-posted-mentioned associated "women's help services" the lawyers use to build their cases; under the guise of "aggrieved and/or child safety/support/planning. 2) Apparently because he was too aggressive for them to be with him - despite the children being taken before the matter went to court and any allegation was actually proven - so then, in turn, the courts, when the matter finally gets there, now see that family circumstance as the normal position when contemplating where the kids should go - even though it is a life changing (for all) situation (that usually serves the mother and destroys men) created by non proven allegations; that has tormented the father for the entire duration prior to (and probably after) the trial. 3) The actual domestic abuse allegation itself is often far, far, more powerful than the actual legalities of the matter and that's why I came up with the idea for the above points years ago after seeing all this stuff go down time and time again. Even if the guy, later, once the matter has gone to court, proves both his innocence and that the mother falsely accused him, most people will still support their previous misconceptions and views (like a PacLoss) because they're afraid of what it says about them; so now the guy is wrongly accused, without a family, poor, beaten up by the "system", and treated as if he bashed his wife - even though he didn't. Now here is the kicker (that the courts don't want to know about) related to point 3; now there is little or no difference (to the surreal circumstance the guy finds himself in) to a real domestically abusive person . . . and this consideration is critical . . . because it's how the system manufactures domestically abusive men . . as some men (perhaps justifiably) can't - after waiting for their time in court and proving the mother's allegations are false - handle all this, how some laws don't apply and other do but only when it suits, and then . . if the mother on the back of all that and her "win" then gloats . . it's too much . . . the father can then crack as the pressure is too much. . . . then when that matter gets to court the mother's lawyers use that lapse of judgment (under extreme duress and conditions) to justify the previous false allegation and also the lawyers and women's help agencies' earlier lack of scrutinisation. And, in that circumstance the courts are then compelled to act on evidence (even though they didn't before; but they never consider their own lapse of judgments unless its an appeal the father brings forward - which would be another trial he could not afford even before the last legal matter, unless he wanted to get slugged for not paying child support . . . see how the system works) and convict another aggressive and domestically abusive man, and the cycle repeats.
Rinse and repeat baby.
Late night show host says: ""Wow there's a real problem in society today with all these domestically abusive men isn't there""?
Female "patron saint journalist" looking to increase her twitter account hit; stands up and says on national television without even knowing the facts ""yes there sure is, no abuse at all should ever be tolerated"".
Female "patron saint journalist" looking to increase her twitter account hit; completes above comment and then silently thinks; ""now where is the back door so I can flee the broadcast station before anyone asks me about false allegations and the fact checking I have done"". ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------
StormCentre Social Avenger Even In NonPacEvenHandedness Matters.


-stormcentre :

Storm, I'm all cool with it, & a lot more wiser for it. Another of life's lessons. Cheers
Thanks Absy. A few more thoughts . . . let me just put my lawyer typing timer on for this slow typing poster here . . .OK, here goes.... Add to the above
a 4th base starting position which is the implementation of a recorded and checkable (by print and law) procedure where all women's help agencies check for false allegation and the lack of material proof; before proceeding and spending government funds - accountability. The questionnaire can be analogous to the NSAC kind that Pac/Kontz/Arum/Roach recently "accidentally" bungled, which would probably suffice as a starting position. Perhaps the document can finally be signed off with a point where the "case worker" declares whether she sought comment from the "alleged perpetrator". "Cases" could then be rated with another metric that (implicitly, at a later date) defined the quality of "evidence" associated with the "allegation" and claim, and from there these agencies could have some traceability and financial accountability hung around their necks; in the sense that each allegation formed a business case that they themselves were actually responsible for - as opposed to (with the false and not genuine claims), perhaps just a pretty girl crying about how her plans for unexpected (and sometimes ambushed) pregnancy did not go as (financially) planned. It happens a lot !!!!! Add
a 5th base starting position to the above, that constitutes a police and legal document that the police must get the "aggrieved" to sign before she completes her domestic abuse paperwork, allegation, and possibly walks off with the kids - whilst the father is "distracted" with the domestic abuse allegation. If she then, later, breaches this agreement she is liable, the human rights laws related to equal parent ownership immediately applies, and her allegation is viewed in that context. Call the document "Kids for cash" if you like :) but that document too must have similar questions to the above-mentioned "women's help agencies check for false allegations and the lack of material proof" document. Then the 2 above documents can go together and be available to all parties within any subsequent legal matter; to see how the "story" (but not necessarily evidence) grew as the actual matter itself grew older. You see the false allegations almost always grow as the matter becomes legal and progresses; but this is rarely checked in the context of the mother's reliability and on those rare occasions where it is and the mother is found to have lied, nothing is done. The document the police are compelled to get the "aggrieved" (whether they're men, women, or in between) to sign must always have a legal declaration that records/states where (if at all) the "aggrieved" intends to take the children on the back of her domestic abuse allegation, and why the children must be removed from their father. This important information (along with the evidence of the alleged crime the "aggrieved" presents) can then be used to both facilitate a better legal understanding, and also assess how well the police "assisted" and "diminished" both parties. It can also be used to assess how the claims pertaining to the children and father that are often used for legal advantages once the parties lawyer up, were and/or were not present when the initial "allegation" was formed. Add
a 6th base starting position to the above, that holds both parties accountable for perjury (in, at least the same context as most fathers in receipt of false allegations are treated guilty right off the bat of any female based allegation) like any decent courtroom does and should. Add
a 7th base starting position to the above, that considers the way - some - women financially implicate men as economic abuse. Dontcha love that one? Why can't that apply? I can't take credit for all the detail within the above ideas, as some comes from my barrister mate. In any regard, the above would not hinder genuine domestic abuse claims, but it would certainly deter quite a few false ones and expose what the women's help agencies and some lawyers are doing; which is why it like waiting for "stantiation" in some parts round here. :) My opinion; the system is, percentage-wise and in relation to the real proven cases (and their allegations) of abuse, mostly a scam purporting to be something else on the back of the small percentage of (but still very stigmatic) genuine abuse allegations (and the possibility of that happening if serious, but outside of most democratic and/or legal constitutions, action is not taken) that are perpetuated by men whom are fools, overly aggressive, possibly with substance/alcohol issues, and idiots. The rest of the allegations relate to men out there are good cats, but had an argument with their partner. Let's leave this on a humorous note . . . .if it's at all possible . . . In one of the 3 day trials I attended to where barrister "Steve" represented the accused . . . (whom was a hardworking bricklayer . . .of whom his partner of 14 years had absolutely no evidence to support all her claims . . . but, over the course of the pre-trail period (about 2.5 years) she and her lawyers
(1 see below legend) had all but completely devastated his life - taken his kids from him
(2) - ensured the whole town that they lived in thought - or felt they should think/act - as if he was a women beater
(3) ). . the "accused" sat in the courtroom with nothing left, nothing more to lose . . just absolutely exhausted . . . He said, ""I don't understand this system, I have nothing left, no money, no credibility, no life, no family, no kids that I see regularly anymore, . . . yet I became a bricklayer and moved to this town because we had a family and got married . . I have never hurt my wife and she has never proven that even though it is the basis for all her claims and the current situation that has resulted from it both in and out of the courts, so what can the court do for me that will repair all this, or don't I matter"?" It was really sad and that's why I have never forgotten it. You could tell this guy was a really nice guy that just had had the absolute character and soul beaten out of him by the "process" and "system". The judge knowingly looked at the women's lawyers and said nothing; as they all know what goes on. The judges look over the brim of his glasses conveyed so much information and disgust that it was extremely moving. The father was a reasonably famous local footballer that had been in the paper because he turned down an offer to play in the big league because of . . . get this . . . his family. Yep !!! The accused guy continued . . . ""now I know that the mother's lawyers will tell you today that the children have been with her for almost 2 years now and that I must work to support them, her and me, and in that order, so given all that . . it seems to me that there is no motivation for the courts to even consider my case and/or reverse what damage has already happened; let alone look at what she has said that is false, and done off the back of that"". It was a compelling statement. The judge tucked his bottom lip up over the top one, looked sad, and said nothing. "Steve" tried to hush his client (the accused guy) up afraid that the judge would take it all as an insult that the courts were party to what goes on, and you could hear the guy quietly reject that and say, ""no, I have had enough, what more can they do to me now? If I never say what I want to here and now, then I will never forgive myself and never be able to look my children in the eyes when they grow up and say your Dad tried to stop this insaneness"". The guy then says loudly to the judge. . . ""You can do a lot of horrible things to a man whilst he is accused of domestic abuse and waiting for his chance to be heard - even abuse him. . . . and one other thing, why is when I tell my wife that she is an idiot for doing this and wasting our money . . which is how this whole thing started . . . I am abusing her - but not she me when she yells at me? How can you not be an idiot for falsely accusing your husband of abuse and splitting the family up on that basis?"" He continued . . . (and this is the funny bit; sorry it took a while) . . ""Aren't you basically creating a law whereby us men are unfairly punished for telling the truth . . how can you say they are not idiots sometimes, when you can't even get the courage to look at all the false allegations and do something about whilst it's meant to be against the law to lie in court and to the police"". He completed the tirade with this gem (which didn't help {or hinder} his case) before his tears came through; ""she just does my head in . . all the things she has done and I never said or did anything about that . . . . there out to be a law against that . . it's too much"".
Confession; I was there in that hearing to support him as I knew him, he and the judge knew me from boxing, and I knew he was innocent; he was not a woman beater. I later got him a job in a boxing gym that better suited him time arrangements with his wonderful children. OK, total typing time = 23mins and 23 secs. ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------
Legend 1) And all the above-posted-mentioned associated "women's help services" the lawyers use to build their cases; under the guise of "aggrieved and/or child safety/support/planning. 2) Apparently because he was too aggressive for them to be with him - despite the children being taken before the matter went to court and any allegation was actually proven - so then, in turn, the courts, when the matter finally gets there, now see that family circumstance as the normal position when contemplating where the kids should go - even though it is a life changing (for all) situation (that usually serves the mother and destroys men) created by non proven allegations; that has tormented the father for the entire duration prior to (and probably after) the trial. 3) The actual domestic abuse allegation itself is often far, far, more powerful than the actual legalities of the matter and that's why I came up with the idea for the above points years ago after seeing all this stuff go down time and time again. Even if the guy, later, once the matter has gone to court, proves both his innocence and that the mother falsely accused him, most people will still support their previous misconceptions and views (like a PacLoss) because they're afraid of what it says about them; so now the guy is wrongly accused, without a family, poor, beaten up by the "system", and treated as if he bashed his wife - even though he didn't. Now here is the kicker (that the courts don't want to know about) related to point 3; now there is little or no difference (to the surreal circumstance the guy finds himself in) to a real domestically abusive person . . . and this consideration is critical . . . because it's how the system manufactures domestically abusive men . . as some men (perhaps justifiably) can't - after waiting for their time in court and proving the mother's allegations are false - handle all this, how some laws don't apply and other do but only when it suits, and then . . if the mother on the back of all that and her "win" then gloats . . it's too much . . . the father can then crack as the pressure is too much. . . . then when that matter gets to court the mother's lawyers use that lapse of judgment (under extreme duress and conditions) to justify the previous false allegation and also the lawyers and women's help agencies' earlier lack of scrutinisation. And, in that circumstance the courts are then compelled to act on evidence (even though they didn't before; but they never consider their own lapse of judgments unless its an appeal the father brings forward - which would be another trial he could not afford even before the last legal matter, unless he wanted to get slugged for not paying child support . . . see how the system works) and convict another aggressive and domestically abusive man, and the cycle repeats.
Rinse and repeat baby.
Late night show host says: ""Wow there's a real problem in society today with all these domestically abusive men isn't there""?
Female "patron saint journalist" looking to increase her twitter account hit; stands up and says on national television without even knowing the facts ""yes there sure is, no abuse at all should ever be tolerated"".
Female "patron saint journalist" looking to increase her twitter account hit; completes above comment and then silently thinks; ""now where is the back door so I can flee the broadcast station before anyone asks me about false allegations and the fact checking I have done"". ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------
StormCentre Social Avenger Even In NonPacEvenHandedness Matters.


-Radam G :

Dude..... Floyd's conviction is not the issue... The issue is .....time has been served over two years ago. Its a non issue... To try to use his previous conviction to as a platform to launch an anti abuse platform is as low as it goes. Mike Tyson was recently bushwhacked the same way. He appeared on a local TV show to promote an entirely different topic. The announcer changed the topic and out of nowhere said Mike...you were convicted of rape...how do you feel about..... Tyson just looked at the announcer and said eff you. When ever the announcer came back to Tyson his only answer was eff you. I have no problem with uncomfortable questions but when you get invited to a show to promote a fight and some bimbo reporter tries to undermine your event... Make personal judgement calls about your character and then cut the mic before you can even answer the question. Yeah.... I got issues with that... That's as wrong as the abuse Floyd was tried and convicted of.
All of that comes with the territory. Iron Mike didn't rape nobody [$?€]. Money May did punch and kick somebody. He is a bytch-@$$ punk for those acts. Once you do it, you can't take it back. You gotta live with it. Holla!


-stormcentre :

Dude..... Floyd's conviction is not the issue... The issue is .....time has been served over two years ago. Its a non issue... To try to use his previous conviction to as a platform to launch an anti abuse platform is as low as it goes. Mike Tyson was recently bushwhacked the same way. He appeared on a local TV show to promote an entirely different topic. The announcer changed the topic and out of nowhere said Mike...you were convicted of rape...how do you feel about..... Tyson just looked at the announcer and said eff you. When ever the announcer came back to Tyson his only answer was eff you. I have no problem with uncomfortable questions but when you get invited to a show to promote a fight and some bimbo reporter tries to undermine your event... Make personal judgement calls about your character and then cut the mic before you can even answer the question. Yeah.... I got issues with that... That's as wrong as the abuse Floyd was tried and convicted of.
Yes, and when Tyson justifiably said "eff you" . . . this forum right here lit up (with some of the same people that are now reminding us if Floyd's past) in support of Mike and how he should be given a pass . . . because . . get this . . . he did his time and it's in the past. Now I know this doesn't apply to you BS . . . but let's keep it real and consistent cool cats. :) Floyd don't fight the way yawl want, and yes it's you're right to like or dislike it. But I don't see no-one beating him and/or knowing how to get under his style and skills; period. Sure, I would have liked to see Floyd close out the MayPac fight with more intensity in the 12th round, but he's over the fight game (I think), didn't want to give Pac any lucky shots, and, plus, he knew Pac couldn't make up the point's deficit. Pac, could have tried more too. Time to treat Floyd's past as we do Mike's.


-stormcentre :

Kudos to your comprehensive observations Storm... Your excellent comments have allowed me to reschedule the hour it would have taken me to one-finger-type my personal ordeal (preferrably with the middle finger) about the unbalanced and heavily biased women's abuse industry that allows virtual total strangers to make unsubstantiated blanket comments about a persons character without having the slightest scintilla of evidence to support their claims. The feelings of my experience of dealing with the ambulance chasing, grandstanding scum who make a living by making sweeping accusations off decades old hastily scrawled court documents are still too strong to even speak on in partiality, or I would surely unleash a torrent of pent up emotional anguish that would transform one of my fingers into a bloody stump before I was finished typing my 5 part novelette explaining my ordeal into the cell phone. Suffice to say the case was thrown out and my accuser has been trying to ingratiate herself into my life ever since. My acuser attends the church I visit....where I never gave the pastor, or other members a single word of explanation of the circumstances in defense of my position......even through the cold handshakes, loathesome leers, and silent finger pointing that continued well over a year after charges were dropped. But over time people can't help but to know you for who you are and they soon saw my emotionally unstable accuser for who she really is as a person and in the end it became a non issue. I have neither sympathy or hate for the clueless publicity seeking reporters mentioned in this article but I feel their understanding of domestic violence is even less than the credibility provided in the two dimensional caricatures that they struggle to present in their shallow cliche ridden alarmist tainted articles.
Cheers mate. Keep strong with it. There are thousands out there in the same boat. The system sucks and is, for the most part and save for the genuine cases, both a lawyer's and patron saint's picnic.


-stormcentre :

Stormcenter rules
Thanks KB. I just thought I'd offer up a little balance on the subject. Yes, real domestic violence and abuse to women (and men) is not acceptable. Same for false allegations of domestic violence and abuse to women (and men); that too - is not acceptable. Both the above - not just the 1st, needs to have the same interest, funding, and light shone on them. Peace out hard rockers and wicked (in a nice way) ladies out there that also know what time it is with this racquet; as I have met quite a few women that really know other women play the system too. Ever notice how, in some Asian countries, they're not allowed to have over a certain amount of children? Well, without getting into the politics and population control aspects of that decision, they're family law courts are orders of magnitude less cluttered than ours with these issues. Tells you something.